USA _ Clearing up ‘misinformation’ spread by foes of fluoridation

Marjorie Warner: Clearing up ‘misinformation’ spread by foes of fluoridation
Marjorie Warner, guest columnist
Thursday, December 6, 2007
I am a medical student who recently researched the fluoridation of public water systems for a scientific paper I had to write for one of my courses. As a member of the scientific community, I am disheartened by the few outlandish remarks that too often end up getting all the press associated with important health issues which obscure and distort the truth of the matter.
In each of the more than 50 scientific articles I read from researchers across the globe and including those at the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. National Institute of Health, it was found that fluoride, specifically hydrofluorosilic acid, does not cause any degree of systemic disease when released in controlled amounts into a public water system.

The only effect an excessive amount of fluoride can cause is a cosmetic effect of dental fluorosis, in which certain teeth may obtain a mottled appearance with some areas being a brighter white than others. This only occurs if very large amounts of fluoride are consumed, which would not occur with the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water system.

I would like to address some of the misinformation in a Dec. 1 letter, “Vote no to add ‘poisonous’ chemical to water.”

First, fluoride is not meant to harden teeth, so I suppose the contributor was correct in saying fluoride does not do this. Fluoride is meant to become incorporated into plaque (which forms naturally on teeth) and inhibit the metabolism of bacteria (also present naturally) that cause dental caries (cavities). This is the basis for the use of fluoride in toothpaste; which raises the obvious question: If fluoride were such a dangerous toxin, would we so readily buy it and use it to clean our teeth on a daily basis? I’ll let you decide that answer for yourself.

Second, dental fluorosis was incorrectly defined. It is not a corrosive disease of the teeth, but rather a color change of the enamel that can occur, once again, only with ingestion of extremely high levels of fluoride. In fact, the studies I read cited that a person is more likely to get this cosmetic annoyance with the accidental ingestion of toothpaste, as occurs often in young children, rather than by the ingestion of fluoridated water.

Third, I do not know what sources (the letter writer) used to state that countries across Europe have denied fluoridation of water systems. The exact opposite of this is true. Laws have been passed in England and Italy, and outside of Europe in Australia, Brazil, and India, just to name a few, to allow fluoridation of public water systems to occur.

The few individuals who oppose fluoridation are obviously basing their information on non-proven, non-scientific, non-reproducible data, which is why they have to harken to the emotional strings of the reader, implying that parents are giving their children cancer if they vote for fluoridation. Such methods are offensive and reproachable in any intelligent, civilized society.

I read a few of the remarks online in response to the anti-fluoridation letter, and was most disappointed in the defeatist attitude of some who responded with the idea that if our water system isn’t fluoridated we all can simply get a prescription for fluoride supplements from our dentist or buy toothpaste to brush our teeth with.

I would like to ask that writer if he or she has been in a public health clinic recently, and seen children and adults with such severe dental disease that they have actually become infected with bacteria in their bloodstream. Those among us who are not able to afford dental checkups or even toothpaste do not have the luxury of choosing from a menu of proper dental-health procedures.

This is in my mind the most appalling aspect of those who oppose the public health intervention of fluoridation of public water systems. Can they not see that they are blocking the equitable distribution of resources and in fact contributing to the worsening health of the uninsured, the underserved, in a phrase, those who need the help the most?
I urge anyone who reads this to not give in to scare tactics. Take a stand for those in our community who do not have the resources to take time off work to come to a town hall meeting and plead for the equitable distribution of preventative dental health measures through the inexpensive and non-harmful method of fluoridation of a water system.
Vote yes for fluoridation, a vote not only for a more equitable distribution of preventive dental care, but for healthier children, who will grow to become healthier adults, leading a healthier community overall.

Warner, whose family lives in Stuart, is a second-year medical student at Florida State University. 

Are we all now reassured?